Sanity on Gaza
There has been an awful lot of nonsense written about Gaza from both the left and right. There are those on the left who simply believe that Israel does not have the right to defend itself against a terrorist enemy that relentlessly attacks its civilians and refuses to acknowledge its right to exist. There are those on the right--my beloved neoconservatives--who think a clear-cut "victory" is possible against Hamas, which is ridiculous, or that real enemy is Iran, which should be attacked forthwith (by the United States)--which is criminally foolish.
My own feeling was, and has been, that Israel had the right to wage a limited campaign against Hamas's military capability. The most valuable targets were probably hit in the first few days--a clear defeat for Hamas--and that, as Ehud Barak desired, the French cease-fire should have been accepted when it was first proposed, with an international force established to block the tunnel-smuggling of new weapons across Gaza's southern border (and with the understanding that Israel would pursue similar, limited bombing campaigns in the future if the rockets from Gaza persisted). The current ground campaign seems destined for failure, according to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a very astute observer of military actions. Here is his conclusion:
This raises a question that every Israeli and its supporters now needs to ask. What is the strategic purpose behind the present fighting? After two weeks of combat Olmert, Livni, and Barak have still not said a word that indicates that Israel will gain strategic or grand strategic benefits, or tactical benefits much larger than the gains it made from selectively striking key Hamas facilities early in the war. In fact, their silence raises haunting questions about whether they will repeat the same massive failures made by Israel's top political leadership during the Israeli-Hezbollah War in 2006. Has Israel somehow blundered into a steadily escalating war without a clear strategic goal or at least one it can credibly achieve? Will Israel end in empowering an enemy in political terms that it defeated in tactical terms? Will Israel's actions seriously damage the US position in the region, any hope of peace, as well as moderate Arab regimes and voices in the process?
To blunt, the answer so far seems to be yes. To paraphrase a comment about the British government's management of the British Army in World War I, lions seem to be led by donkeys. If Israel has a credible ceasefire plan that could really secure Gaza, it is not apparent. If Israel has a plan that could credibly destroy and replace Hamas, it is not apparent. If Israel has any plan to help the Gazans and move them back towards peace, it is not apparent. If Israel has any plan to use US or other friendly influence productively, it not apparent.
As we have seen all too clearly from US mistakes, any leader can take a tough stand and claim that tactical gains are a meaningful victory. If this is all that Olmert, Livni, and Barak have for an answer, then they have disgraced themselves and damaged their country and their friends. If there is more, it is time to make such goals public and demonstrate how they can be achieved. The question is not whether the IDF learned the tactical lessons of the fighting in 2006. It is whether Israel's top political leadership has even minimal competence to lead them.
I think he's a bit unfair to Barak here, lumping him in with Livni--who is overplaying the tough card for electoral purposes--and Olmert, who is in this to expunge his perceived failure in Lebanon. Barak was a reluctant warrior, and he had the sense to understand that the campaign should have ended after the first few days. But Cordesman is right about the larger picture. One hopes the Israelis will understand that the military utility of this campaign is most likely over and a profound regional political defeat looms.
-
1
"There are those on the left who simply believe that Israel does not have the right to defend itself against a terrorist enemy that relentlessly attacks its civilians and refuses to acknowledge its right to exist."
.
Who are these people? -
2
The most valuable targets were probably hit in the first few days--a clear defeat for Hamas--and that, as Ehud Barak desired, the French cease-fire should have been accepted when it was first proposed, with an international force established to block the tunnel-smuggling of new weapons across Gaza's southern border (and with the understanding that Israel would pursue similar, limited bombing campaigns in the future if the rockets from Gaza persisted).
--
Any stable cease-fire would have to address the Israeli blockade and the resulting shortages of basic supplies in Gaza. -
3
I largely agree with what you call your "feelings" about the war, though I do that only from what I hear in the news.
.
As the last few weeks have progressed, it has seemed that Israel is blinded by its aggrieved point of view, and if it has a strategic purpose it wouldn't surprise me if the purpose is contrived (unintentionally) to allow Israel to continue to vent its rage.
.
Israel has learned (it believes) that it can't count on anyone to look out for its interests, and so the assessment of other countries don't seem to count for much. Otherwise, it appears it could have skillfully exploited the growing distaste for Hamas in Gaza, and the sympathy of the rest of the world, to get "permission" to deal with Hamas. Instead, it has garnered sympathy for Hamas, without and probably within Gaza.
.
I don't recall Cordesman as a particularly astute talking head in the run up to the Iraq war. -
4
PNNTO asks a good question and we should all demand an answer
.There are those on the left who simply believe that Israel does not have the right to defend itself against a terrorist enemy that relentlessly attacks its civilians and refuses to acknowledge its right to exist."
.
Who are these people?.
Answer the man Joe Klein, King of Strawmen. Who are these people? -
5
I would guess Joe K's example of the nonsense from the right is in the obscure forum known as The New York Times editorial page in the form of Bill Kristol.
-
6
Straw man on the left, as usual.
-
7
PNNTO
.
See thats the point. There are actual examples of people on right who
."think a clear-cut "victory" is possible against Hamas, which is ridiculous, or that real enemy is Iran, which should be attacked forthwith (by the United States)--which is criminally foolish"
.
Kristol, Krautheimer and all of NRO to name a few
.
But Joe Klein knows good and hell well he won't find even one person on the left who believes Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself. He is intellecutally dishonest because he knows his own position on Israel is indefensible. He is just as bad as the NeoCons who tried for years to discourage debate on Iraq by saying anyone who did so were "appeasers", "gave aid and comfort to the enemy" and or they wanted to "raise the white flag of surrender." Hell even his nemesis Glenn Greenwald said in black and white terms on Hugh Hewitts show no less that Israel has a right to defend itself. So again I ask
.
Who are these people on the left Joe Klein? -
8
I agree sg, that's why I brought up Kristol in case the old reliable "commenter at Kos" gambit was played.
-
9
PNNTO
.
The funny thing is I visit kos probably once a day and even there I have yet to see anyone, no commenter or anyone else intimte that Israel does not have a right to defend itself. -
10
> Israel has learned (it believes) that it can't count on anyone to look out for its interests
'
Yes, we know how the world just pitched right in and helped the Jews during those awful years of '38 to '45. And how the world jumped right in to defend Israel during the 6 Day War, among others.
'
> Who are these people on the left Joe Klein?
'
More and more, sg, it seems to me that if you're looking for said people, you could find at least one by looking in the mirror. -
11
Mr Nice Guy
.
Sorry buddy but neo dumb asses like you don't scare me. I am not like you in that Israel can do no wrong. They have done wrong and ARE doing wrong. You want to debate that we can go all day. You can call me all kinds of names to. I don't really give a sh!t. The truth is on my side. -
12
"There are those on the left who simply believe that Israel does not have the right to defend itself against a terrorist enemy that relentlessly attacks its civilians and refuses to acknowledge its right to exist."
.
...and there are those pundits who prop up strawmen to make their points. Still being chased down the dirty alleys of his fevered mind by dirty f@cking hippies. Hippies who've been overwhelming correct in recent history, and that's the point of running from them right Joke? You run from them otherwise you'd have to confront the fact that the assumptions you've clung to all these years, the conventional wisdoms you've based a career and worldview on, have been now proven completely wrong, and disaster looms.
.
Answer the question Klein...not a coward are you? -
13
Adding to the chorus: Who are these people on the left Joe Klein?
.
We have enough voices now for five part harmony. -
14
Strike that, now it's a six part harmony.
.
cincy - excellent points. -
15
sg, I was afraid I put that poorly.
I meant that as shorthand for "see here I found someone who said that!" and pointing to some anonymous post.
Didn't mean to impugn Kos or the commenters there. -
16
I guess the UN is full of dirty hippies considering they want Israel investigated for War Crimes
.
Funny how we have no post on that from Joe Klein though. -
17
Nice Guy and Zionists in general: It always amuses me that you and others point out the terrorist actions of jihadis as justification for wanton slaughter, when the state of Israel was founded by people using the same tactics, including:
.
.
1937-1939 The Irgun conducted a campaign of violence against civilians resulting in the deaths of at least 250.
.
Nov 6, 1944 Lehi assassinated British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo. The action is condemned by the Yishuv, but the bodies of the assassins are brought home in 1975 to a state funeral and burial on Mount Herzl.
.
July 26, 1946 The bombing of British headquarters at the King David Hotel, killing 91 people — 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 others. Around 45 people were injured.
.
Oct 31, 1946 The bombing by the Irgun of the British Embassy in Rome.
.
Jul 25, 1947 The reprisal killing of two British sergeants who had been taken prisoner in response to British execution of two Irgun members in Akko prison.
.
Sept 17, 1948, Lehi assassination of the UN mediator Count Bernadotte, whom Lehi accused of a pro-Arab stance during the cease-fire negotiations. -
18
PNNTO
.
Nah you didn't. I know dailykos is the whipping boy of neocons and Joe Klein alike and unfortunately you can find a stray commenter that posts some truly reprehensible sh!t. I was just pointing out that this time if they tried to use that fail back they would actually fail. For one kos himself doesn't comment on the I/P issue because he knows all it does is start flame wars. And for two the few diaries on the subject all acknowledge Israel's right to defend itself and that Hamas is a terrorist organization even when criticizing what Israel is doing. Just like Kucinich and Paul did yesterday. -
19
"... the few diaries on the subject all acknowledge Israel's right to defend itself and that Hamas is a terrorist organization even when criticizing what Israel is doing. Just like Kucinich and Paul did yesterday."
.
The thing that baffles me is that is considered somehow too nuanced for broad public consumption. -
20
Sorry, folks. Joe won't be mingling with the DFHs today. He is off to watch the playoffs with some of his pundit buddies, later to a Georgetown cocktail party with more Villagers, where each will congratulate the other on their incitefulness.
-
21
...not only incitefulness, but regularguyness, which is a strange thing to do at a Georgetown cocktail party, but Freud would've had a field day w/ these incorrigible morons.
-
22
PNNTO
.
Its not. But a lot of people don't have the courage to speak the truth because of how it will be distorted by people on the other side of the fence. In Joe Klein's case he creates a strawman so as not to be seen as a raging lefty liberal who only attacks conservatives. Its the same reason NBC allowed Coulter on Tee Vee the other day after Drudge put on his site that they canceled her appearance. -
23
Mind you Klein is the same guy who just yesterday took Greenwald to task for being intellectually dishonest even though the article he posted pretty clearly showed exactly what Greenwald said it did, that Klein's opposition to torture is maleable. But here we sit with a post that has the most intellectually dishonest sentence in it that you can imagine. And somehow I doubt he will be striking a line through that one like he did yesterday in his Greenwald post.
-
24
Mr. Nice Guy, I recommend that you read this interview with a former Israeli speaker of the legislature: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1869325,00.html
The Holocaust is a very real trauma for many people in Israel, and nobody can argue with that. But ... when I hear someone like Benjamin Netanyahu, who is a very intelligent person, say of [Iran's President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, "It's 1938 all over again," I say, is it?! Is this the reality? Did we have such an omnipotent army in 1938? Did we have an independent state in 1938? Did we have the unequivocal support in 1938 of all the important superpowers in the world? No, we did not. And when you compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler, don't you diminish Hitler's significance?
--
At the end of the interview he tells a story about his son that is one of the most heartbreaking and beautiful things I've read recently. Everyone should read it, even if they don't have time to read the entire article. -
25
Joe: are you just getting another post going to keep us all frothing mad. MNG has a line; and that has been met with some detailed rebuttal. Surely, if we provide so much in arms and ammunition, plus drones, F16 fighters and all sorts of capabilities we need to ask what is happening in Israel.I have read the pros and cons and it is now so repititive Is 15 days of war in Gaza the only way Israel's can gain security. I doubt it. I just see committed Arab kids who will grow up to avenge their dead.
Most Popular »
- "Personal Sins Should Not Require Press Releases"
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- The 'Alice' Interview: A Very Different Brand of Wonderland
- Congress's Tepid Reaction to Obama's Afghanistan Plan
- Tiger Speaks
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- State Dinner, Uh, Fashion
- Rep. Woolsey: Majority Of Dems Will Vote Against War Funding
- White House Hypocritical Attack on Politico
- The Dreaded X
- Can Attack Dogs Be Rehabilitated?
- Rachel Uchitel: Tiger Woods' Alleged Affair Connection
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Europe's Secret Nuclear Weapons: What Should NATO Do?
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas
- Tiger Woods Admits 'Transgressions': Will Image Be Hurt?
- Why Fritz Henderson Resigned as GM's CEO
- Ireland: Lack of New Catholic Priests Spurs Campaign
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell
- Could White House Party Crashers the Salahis Go to Jail?













RSS